Inder Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

2025:HHC:23340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 6677 of 2024 Date of Decision: July 18, 2025

_____________________ Inder Singh State of HP and others	_________________ Versus	________________________ ... Petitioner …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice San Whether approved for re	deep Sharma, Judge porting?	.
For the petitioner	Mr. Vikrant Chandel	, Advocate..
For the respondents ______________________	Mr. Anoop Rattan, Rajan Kahol and Advocates General Advocate General, 3/State. Mr. Rangil Singh, A ____________________	Advocate General with Mr. Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional & Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy for respondent Nos. 1 to dvocate, for respondent No.4. __________________________

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J (Oral)

¶6

Petitioner was engaged as a Beldar/Peon on daily wage basis on 7.2.1998, in Panchayat Samiti, Siraj, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, where he worked till 19.10.2007. In 2007, after a decision was taken by the Government to take over services of daily wagers working in Panchayat Samitis, on account of financial difficulty in paying wages of such employees and after approval of the Cabinet, services of petitioner were taken over by the Panchayati Raj Department and vide office order dated 22.9.2007, his services were regularized. Petitioner thereafter superannuated on 31.3.2016, after attaining the age of 58 years, after rendering service of eight years, five months and twelve days.

¶7

2025:HHC:23340

¶8

2 -

¶9

Since the issue at hand revolves around applicability of Rule-56 of Fundamental Rules, it would be apt to take note of amendment made on 10.5.2001, by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby Rule-56 was amended as under:

¶10

“(a) After clause (b) the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:¬

¶11

“Provided that a workman appointed on or after the date of publication of this notification in the Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years.”

¶12

(b) After proviso to clause (e) the following second proviso shall be inserted, namely:¬ “Provided further that a Class¬IV Government servant appointed on or after the date of publication of this notification in Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh shall retire from service”

¶13

On 21.2.2018, Finance Department, Himachal Pradesh issued a Notification, amending rule-56 of Fundamental Rules, in their application to the State of Himachal Pradesh, as under:

¶14

“Provided further that a Class-IV Government servant appointed on parttime/daily wages basis prior to 10-05-2001 and regularized on or after 10-052001 shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years.”

¶15

In the aforesaid backdrop, some employees, who stood retired before

¶16

issuance of Notification dated 21.2.2018, but were appointed on part time/daily wage basis prior to 10.5.2001, filed petitions in this court, seeking benefit of said Notification, one of which was CWP No. 2711 of 2017 titled Baldev v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which was decided on 27.2.2022. It is apt to take note of the fact that the aforesaid petition alongwith connected matters was placed before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, on account of the fact that different verdicts came to be

¶17

2025:HHC:23340

¶18

3 -

¶19

passed regarding applicability of rule-56. The reference made to the Coordinate Bench, was answered on 27.2.2022, with the following observations:

¶20

“There cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class¬IV employees belonging to one homogenous class. Therefore the retirement date, of such of those employees, who had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001, but regularized after 10.05.2001 and have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, shall be deemed to be the date when they otherwise attained the age of 60 years. Since these employees have not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, they will not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of their retirement. However, they will be entitled to notional fixation of their pay for the period in question for working out their payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly.”

¶21

Pursuant to decision rendered by this Court in Baldev (supra), clarification was issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, on 28.4.2023, regarding giving benefit of decision in Baldev (supra).

¶22

Vide another Notification dated 4.5.2023 issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh, Finance (Pension) Department, Standard Operating Procedure was issued for implementation of Old Pension Scheme i.e. CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (which had ceased to be operative vide Notification dated 4.5.2023, in the State of Himachal Pradesh), clause (ii), whereof provides as under:

¶23

“(ii) The Government employees who wishes to be covered under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, also known as Old Pension Scheme, shall exercise an option, within sixty days from the date of issuance of these instructions, on the prescribed format at Annexure-II. An undertaking shall also be furnished by such employees on the prescribed format at Annexure-III.

¶24

2025:HHC:23340

¶25

4 -

¶26

The `option' and 'undertaking' as per the Annexure-II and Annexure-III, shall be duly notarized and same will be submitted to the Head of Office. (iii) An Option once exercised by the Government employees, either opting for the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the National Pension System shall be final and irrevocable. If an employee fails to exercise an option within the stipulated period, it shall be deemed that he/ she wishes to be continued under the National Pension System.”

¶27

As per decision dated 27.2.2022, it has been directed that the employees, who had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001, but regularized after 10.05.2001 and have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, shall be deemed to be the date when they otherwise attained the age of 60 years. Since these employees have not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, they will not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of their retirement. However, they will be entitled to notional fixation of their pay for the period in question for working out their payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly.

¶28

Reverting back to the present case, petitioner was superannuated on 31.3.2016, i.e. prior to issuance of Notification dated 21.2.2018, as such, as per ratio of law laid down in Baldev (supra), he shall be deemed to be retired on attaining age of 60 years i.e. on 31.3.2018. In view of this, the petitioner shall be deemed to have served for ten years, eight months and 12 days, thus entitling him to benefit of pension.

¶29

2025:HHC:23340

¶30

5 -

¶31

It seems that the petitioner made a representation to the respondents for treating him in service till 60 years of age and pursuant thereto, he has been granted notional benefits, but after the case of petitioner, who at the time of retirement was covered under NPS, was sent for grant of pension vide letter dated 28.11.2023 (Annexure P-2), same was sent back by the office of Accountant General, on 5.1.2024, with the following observation:

¶32

“The pension case may be sent to this office after compliance of instruction/standard Standard (sic:Standing) Operating Procedures (SOP) issued by Govt. of H.P. notification No. Fin(Pen)A(3)-12023, dated 4.5.2023”

¶33

It seems that the matter was discussed by the respondent Department with Finance Department for relaxing condition of exercising option for OPS, after completion of 60 days and following opinion was rendered by Finance Department, conveyed to the Principal, Panhayati Raj Training Institute, Thunag:

¶34

“Since the Government instructions extending the benefits of Baldev case in CWP(OA) No. 2208/2020 to the similar situated Class-IV employees was issued by the Finance Department vide letter No. Fin(C)A(3)-2/2013-1 dated 28.4.2023 much before, the Government instructions for restoration Old Pension Scheme (OPS) were issued vide OM No.Fin(pen)A(3)-1/2023 dated 04.05.2023. Therefore, the AD’s proposal for relaxation of Government Instructions dated 04.05.2023 ibid is not justified.”

¶35

The main issue at hand is whether the petitioner can be deprived of benefit of being covered under Old Pension Scheme /CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, on the basis of Notification dated respondent No.4.5.2023, whereby Old Pension Scheme was restored, which provided for exercising option within

¶36

2025:HHC:23340

¶37

6 -

¶38

sixty days of issuance of said Notification, especially when he stood retired on 31.3.2016.

¶39

Similar issue came up before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7097 of 2024 titled Smt. Phoolmati v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which was decided on 31.12.2024, holding as under:

¶40

“4. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the petitioner retired as a Class-IV employee, from the Agriculture Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, this Court is of the considered view that the rigors of memorandum dated 04.05.2023 qua the period mentioned therein for the exercise of option, cannot be construed in a harsh manner against an incumbent like the petitioner as a Class-IV employee would hardly be knowing that any memorandum also stands issued by the Government and an act has to be performed by her, in the light of said memorandum. The least that is expected from an employer with regard to Class-III and Class-IV employees is that they should inform such like employees of the memorandum and seek their options, within some reasonable time. If they do not do so within reasonable time, then the Department can proceed in the matter, in accordance with law.

¶41

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the option submitted by the petitioner on 04.11.2023, be treated as a valid option and the case of the petitioner for grant of pension be processed accordingly. Let needful be done, within a period of three months from today. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly”

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that case of his client is covered by decision rendered in Smt. Phoolmati (supra), since his client is also placed in similar circumstances, and rightly so, as, after perusing aforesaid judgment, vis-à-vis facts of present case, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner, who has retired from lowest rung post, on 31.3.2016,

¶43

2025:HHC:23340

¶44

7 -

¶45

cannot be expected to have exercised option within sixty days, especially when, respondents have failed to show that any intimation was given to the petitioner asking him to exercise such option.

¶46

Taking cue from aforesaid decision of Co-ordinate Bench, this Court is of the considered view that condition of exercising option within sixty days cannot be applied to the disadvantage of the petitioner.

¶47

In view of above, communication dated 15.2.2024 (Annexure P-3), containing decision of the Finance Department, rejecting the case of petitioner, is quashed and set aside. Petitioner is held entitled to be covered under the Old Pension Scheme/CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Respondents are directed to settle the contribution of the petitioner inter se NPS and OPS, as per Standard Operating Procedure issued on 4.5.2023 and thereafter, send the pension case to respondent No. 4, which is further directed to process the same, at the earliest and release all the benefits incidental to the petitioner, being governed under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, on the basis of his length of service.

¶48

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶49

July 18, 2025 (Shankar)

Inder Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inder Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachinder Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Ram Kali Vs the State of Hp and Others

Shashi Rattan Vs State of Hp and Others

Anita Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Another

Manmohini Sharma and Another Vs M.Sudha Devi